NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BENJAMIN GAL-OR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

VALERY SHERBAUM, MICHAEL LICHTSINDER,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5079

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:09-cv-00869-SGB, Judge Susan G. 

Braden.

______________________ 

Decided: November 4, 2015

______________________ 

BENJAMIN GAL-OR, Malabalay City, Mindanao, Philippines, pro se. 

DAVID M. RUDDY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, JOHN FARGO.
2 GAL-OR v. US

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, PLAGER, and BRYSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Gal-Or appeals from a final judgment by the 

United States Court of Federal Claims (“trial court”) 

dismissing this case with prejudice. 

We review the trial court’s dismissal for failure to 

state a claim without deference. Cary v. United States, 

552 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We review the trial 

court’s dismissal, made pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims

(“RCFC”), for abuse of discretion. Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 

1990). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

On appeal, Mr. Gal-Or fails to show any error in the 

proceedings below that would warrant reversal. He offers 

no meritorious explanation for his failure to comply with 

the trial court’s show cause order. He offers no meritorious explanation as to why the trial court abused its discretion in its subsequent dismissal, or why the trial court 

erred in dismissing the trade secrets takings claims.

Regarding the patent claim, the trial court acted within its discretion, and we decline to disturb its dismissal on 

appeal. Plaintiffs were specifically warned that a failure 

to respond or file claim construction charts in response to 

the show cause order would result in dismissal pursuant 

to RCFC 41(b). Plaintiffs failed to respond to that order, 

to offer any explanation for that failure, or to seek additional time. Plaintiffs made no filings whatsoever in the 

roughly three months following the trial court’s order. 

The only filing by plaintiffs since the order was Mr. GalOr’s notice of appeal to this court. On this record, the 
GAL-OR v. US 3

trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the 

patent claim pursuant to RCFC 41(b).

Regarding the trade secrets claims, we agree with the 

trial court that dismissal was proper. Mr. Gal-Or disclosed the trade secrets at issue to others who had no 

obligation to protect the information’s confidentiality. In 

addition, he cannot sue the Government for an alleged 

taking by a private party. His potential claims against 

the Government for inducing or benefiting from trade 

secrets misappropriation previously expired. Finally, the 

trade secrets allegations failed to meet the minimum 

pleading standards of RCFC 8.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims.1

AFFIRMED

1 Given the result in this appeal, Mr. Gal-Or’s pending motion to substitute another party in his place is 

denied as moot.